Canon 28-50mm f/3.5 SSC vs Tokina 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 ATX

<p>I currently have the Tokina lens and have read that the Canon is a pretty sharp lens. I was wondering if anyone has used both and if it's worth getting the Canon. Is it a bit better or just a little? I know the lens doesn't go for that much money but if there isn't a significant difference, I'd rather spend the money on getting more film, especially the new Portra 400.</p>

<p>I haven't used the Canon. 28-50 is not a very long range. I think I have a 28-50 Soligor in Canon mount. I don't use it much. The Tokina is an excellent lens. I have it for Konica, Canon and Nikon. The one in Canon mount has had the most use. On the long end it's pretty slow so using it with an F-1 with an L D screen brightens things up. </p>

<p>The Tokina is a very good lens as but I find the Canon 35-105 F3.5 is better. I cannot comment on the Canon 28-50 as I have never used it. If you are looking for a very compact zoom the Tamron AD2 35-70 F3.5 is also very good (and very cheap used)</p>

<p>I agree with Philip re: the Canon 35-105/3.5. It is a great lens. If you need the 28mm focal length, I can recommend my favorite zoom that includes it: the Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5. They can often be found in Canon FD mount for cheap. I've used one since 1984 and I love it.</p>

<p>I have both versions of the 35-105 New FD lenses. The f/3.5 model does not focus close enough at the long end for a tight portrait and it focuses too close at the "macro" setting. The Tokina AT-X focuses to 3 feet before its close-up setting is used. Tamron used to advertise its CF (Continuous Focusing) feature for its zooms. They had no break between two close focusing ranges. The f/3.5-4.5 New FD focuses down to 4 feet at all focal lengths and down to about 3 feet from 70-105mm. It's a personal preference but I'd rather sacrifice close focusing at the short end than at the long end when using a zoom. Some favorite inexpensive but high quality 28s include the Canon f/2.8 FD SC, Vivitar f/2.5 Fixed Mount and Vivitar f/2.8 TX. From looking around on eBay I think there might be more than one version of the Tokina 28-85/3.5-4.5 AT-X but I'm not sure. </p>

<p>I've owned the Tokina 28-85mm f3.5/4.5 ATX and found it to have a very flat contrast I didn't like so much. I picked up a Canon 28-85mm f4.0 nFD (the sister to the 35-105mm f3.5 nFD) and I liked that lens so much that on our once in a lifetme trip to Europe it was my walk around lens on my T-90.<br>

I can't comment on the older S.S.C. 28-50mm as I don't remember ever owning one.</p>

<p>I didn't think about the 35-105mm f/3.5. I'll have to check it out and see what's available. It would be an interesting test with both lenses, the Tokina ATX and the Canon. I wouldn't need a 28mm as I have the 35mm f/2.8 and the 24mm f/2.8 SSC. </p>

<p>I seem to be the only one who both has and uses the 3,5/28-50. It IS a very sharp and convenient lens. During the last holidays in Tuscanny I used it for more or less 80% of all my shots. It is sometimes hard to get and I am very happy to have come by mine for a very cheap price. Comparing with the Tokina in question I'd always go for the Canon, if I didn't need the extra 35mm. Otherwise there is the Canon FD 28-85 (which sometimes gets a bad reputation in forums, but I never had one) or the afore mentioned 35-105.</p>

<p>I thought it might be fun to take a quick "family portrait" of some of the mid-zoom Canon FD lenses mentioned in this particular thread lined up next to each other.</p>

<p>Left to right:</p>

<p>Canon nFD 28-50mm f/3.5<br />Canon nFD 35-70mm f/2.8-3.5<br />Canon nFD 35-105mm f/3.5<br />Canon nFD 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5<br />Canon nFD 28-85mm f/4<br />Canon nFD 50-135mm f/3.5</p>

<p>Couple of comments about some of these lenses from my perspective: The 28-50 is really a decent performer with good sharpness that can hold its own in this range. On this lens I find the two-touch convenient for precise framing. The 50-135 is an amazingly heavy lens. I find myself reaching for this "pool" of lenses when I want a quick travel lens – the 28-50 comes along if I know I might be in close quarters.</p><div></div>

<p>Yeah, the combination 28-50 plus 50-135 is ideal for travelling. I only added the 1,2/50 and the 2,8/20 this summer. The last one only because I wanted to shoot some architecture, otherwise I could have done without it.</p>

<p>That's a nice lens lineup there Gerry. The 28-50mm and the 35-105mm seem to be about in the same price range so I'll more than likely get the 35-105mm. Just wondering how does the 28-85mm f/4 perform in comparison?</p>

<p>Jerome, the FD 28-85mm f/4 is a *splendid* performer. Newer design, introduced much later in the FD-era (1985, I believe). I find that my copy balances contrast and sharpness very well. Mine is ever so slightly soft in the extreme corners at 28mm wide open, but this disappears at f/5.6. It's also lighter weight than its predecessors, with a plastic body. On this particular lens, I don't find that to be a disadvantage, however. It has a very nice feel and balances well on whatever body you place behind it. Nice grippy focusing ring, too.</p>

<p>I tend to reach for this lens instead of the 35-105mm whenever I want just a little bit extra reach on the wide end, such as parades or such with large crowds when I need to optically 'step back' to get a specific vantage point.</p>